Appeal 6004054

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s agent contends that the Council made an error in its assessment of a previous Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application1 for a similar scheme. If it were not for issues with the Council’s website at the time that prevented review of the Council’s reasoning, they would have sought to appeal against that decision. In accordance with section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is not within the remit of this appeal to formally determine whether the proposal requires planning permission. As recognised by the appellant’s agent, an LDC application would be required for that purpose. Ultimately, planning permission was sought for the proposal, and the appeal has thus been determined on its planning merits.

The proposal was amended during the application, including to reduce the height of the proposed rear W/C extension and move it further from the side boundary. The amended plans were formally accepted by the Council and are listed in the decision notice. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended plans.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the area, including the Kensington Conservation Area (CA) and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with regard to outlook.

The site is located within the northern part of the [name]. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or 1 Council Ref CL/25/02403 appearance of the CA. In this area, the CA is predominantly residential in nature, with a considerable degree of consistency in the form and appearance of terraced dwellings along [address] and neighbouring streets. The houses are constructed from London stock brick that is laid in Flemish bond and typically has a painted or stucco finish in various pastel colours, particularly to the front. In so far as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CA in this area is derived from its historic origins, traditional architecture and its dense but consistent layout.

Dwellings typically feature yellow stock brick rear elevations and half-width closet wings are prevalent. This leaves a void between them which is often infilled at lower level with conservatory extensions. Though there is some variation in the design of closet wings, the prevailing pattern of projection and void creates rhythm and uniformity that is highly characteristic of the CA, including in Hillgate Village.

Rear gardens here are modestly sized, and heavily enclosed by built development, with limited separation distances between rear elevations. [address] and [address], most properties have nevertheless retained a gap between rear elevations and the shared rear boundaries. This provides a corridor between the terraces that is predominantly open (in that it is free of significant development), providing respite from the dense urban grain and space for soft landscaping.

The proposal comprises two elements; a single storey glazed extension infilling the gap between the closet wings that would provide a dining space; and a single storey extension projecting beyond the closet wing at the appeal site up to the rear boundary that would provide a W/[name] infill extension would be a discrete addition, in keeping with similar development in the CA, that would not unduly encroach on the open corridor to the rear.

The W/C extension however would be a notable projection beyond the existing rear building line. It would erode the valuable gap between the terraces at the rear. Though the rear spaces aren’t visible from the street, their characteristics remain a contributing factor to the significance of the CA and can be appreciated from the many dwellings that overlook this area. This would therefore detract from the prevailing pattern of development and have a deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the CA.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name]. It would conflict with Policies CD1, CD2, CD4 and CD13 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024 (the Local Plan). These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that development meets the highest standards of design and respects the existing context, character and appearance, including historic characteristics and the significance of CAs.

These policies also seek to ensure that extensions preserve and enhance the particular characteristics of the building type, reinforce the character and integrity of the original building, or group of buildings, and resist proposals that would extend rearward beyond the existing general rear building line, spoil or disrupt the rhythm of rear additions, diminish an important or historic gap or impair the architectural symmetry of a building, terrace or group of buildings.

With respect to paragraph 215 of the Framework, less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance of the CA, a designated heritage asset. Paragraph 212 of the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. While the proposal would provide additional internal space for the appellant, there are no public benefits sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal site is flanked by 53 and [address] (No 57) on either side and bounded by [address] (No 36) at the rear. The second reason for refusal raised concerns specifically regarding the rear extension beyond the existing closet wing and the unacceptable and harmful sense of enclosure to near neighbouring properties. While it references [address] particularly, it does not indicate that the impacts to other near neighbouring properties would be acceptable.

The proposed W/C extension would extend alongside the side boundary wall, and up to the shared rear boundary with No 36. It would be set off the boundary to the side by approximately 350mm, with a slightly narrower gap to the rear.

The rear garden space of No 36 sits on a similar level to the appeal site. It features a modestly sized rear garden space, and the outlook from here and the rear facing lower ground patio doors that overlook it is dominated by the tall boundary wall and the upper floors of the neighbouring dwellings at [address] opposite. While the roof of the extension would slope away from the shared boundary, it would extend above the boundary wall, adding additional mass to the appeal dwelling and increasing the sense of enclosure experienced within No 36’s rear garden.

I saw on my site visit that the rear garden space at No 57 sits over two levels. Access to the lower level is provided from living space on the lower ground floor, Steps lead up to the upper level to the rear, albeit this is still below the level of the decking at No 55. Consequently, the rear garden space of No 57 is already heavily enclosed by the surrounding tall boundary walls and neighbouring dwellings. The lean-to roof of the extension as amended would present a blank gable standing above the already tall boundary wall, as viewed from No 57. This would increase the amount of development along this side of this neighbour’s garden, worsening the sense of enclosure and further eroding the already constrained outlook.

Ultimately, the proposed W/C extension would have the effect of eroding the limited but valuable openness that has been maintained to the rear, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook. It would conflict with Policy CD9 of the Local Plan. This policy, among other provisions, seeks to ensure that development provides good living conditions for neighbouring occupants, including by taking into account the prevailing characteristics of the area and ensuring no harmful increase in the sense of enclosure to existing buildings and spaces, neighbouring gardens, balconies and terraces.

My attention has been drawn to several examples of planning permission granted in this area for similar forms of development. Firstly, all predate the adoption of the Local Plan, and so were considered in a different planning policy context.

Nevertheless, the relationship between properties along the terrace varies somewhat given the sloping topography. Accordingly, none of the other proposals, neighbouring contexts or issues raised are directly comparable to those in this appeal. Notably however, most have sought to retain a greater gap between the rear of the dwelling and the rear boundary of the plot than the appeal proposal.

While a similar rear shower room extension at [address] was approved in 20052, this does not positively contribute to the prevailing pattern of development and so would not provide justification for the harm identified in this instance. This decision also predated the publication of the Kensington Conservation Area Appraisal February 2017. Moreover, the plans provided in respect of the 20233 planning permission for the same property proposed removal of the 2005 “non-original” extension, though it is unclear whether this was implemented.

Ultimately, each case is considered on its individual merits, and none of the decisions referred to lead me to a different conclusion on the main issues.

The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.